Standing Committee D

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 40 - Police regulations by Secretary of State

Question proposed this day, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Anne McIntosh: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. We shall have withdrawal symptoms from the rigours of scrutinising the Bill next week when we are in our constituencies.
 Clauses 34 to 39 would provide the British Transport police authority with the power to make non-statutory regulations for the British Transport police. Those are similar to regulations under the Police Act 1996. We are told that any such non-statutory regulations would require the prior approval of the Secretary of State. I was saying before we adjourned that the concerns that I wish to raise in regard to clause 40 are not dissimilar to those I raised in relation to clause 39. 
 Clauses 40 to 43 would allow the Secretary of State to make statutory regulations in relation to the British Transport police that mirror regulations in the 1996 Act. However, the Secretary of State would be required to consult the authority, the chief constable and staff associations if such regulations were to be made. Again, we are told that the Government do not envisage that that power would be used widely; that was set out in the former Department's consultation paper, ''Modernising the British Transport Police''. The clause provides an enabling power to make statutory regulations. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in what circumstances the clause would be invoked. 
 We are told that the power would be used sparingly, perhaps in circumstances in which the authority would be unable to make regulations itself. I do not understand what those circumstances would be, because I am not terribly well versed in the workings of the British Transport police. It would be helpful to have some guidance in that regard. Would the Strategic Rail Authority make such regulations under present provisions? Is this provision similar to that which currently exists? It would be helpful to know what the relevant circumstances might be. 
 I understand that the regulations would override any incompatible non-statutory regulations that were made by the authority. Presumably, the clause is related to clause 39 and others; perhaps the Minister will explain what that relationship might be. There is clearly a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the authority, the chief constables and the staff associations. Presumably, under clause 39, the Minister will be in a position to confirm that, the 
 staff associations should take it as read that that consultation will also include the British Transport police federation. We are not involved in the consultation process. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what feedback he has had on the consultation, especially on the clause, from the British Transport Police Federation, the superintendents associations and the other staff associations. 
 The other related clauses set out what the nature of the regulations will be. Those regulations relate to the disciplinary procedures, equipment, procedures and practice of the British Transport police. I understand that the provisions are intended to mirror similar ones in the 1996 Act. What is the present situation? Would it be for the Strategic Rail Authority to make those regulations, or is the provision new? Is it consequential on the fact that, unlike the part-statutory, part-contractual basis for the British Transport police, the authority is being set up on a purely statutory basis? Does the clause replicate that? 
 It would be helpful if the Minister explained the relationship between the regulations under clause 40, and statutory regulations. I should perhaps note a difference, as clauses 38 and 39 relate to non-statutory regulations, and clause 40 relates to statutory regulations. I hope that the Minister will specify what the relationship is, and explain what the views of the respective bodies—the staff associations and the British Transport Police Federation—were at the time of the consultation paper.

David Jamieson: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. We are pleased, as always, to sit under your watchful eye.
 The previous clauses provide a system whereby the authority can make regulations for the governance and operations of the British Transport police. Those regulations must be based on the equivalent regulations made by the Home Secretary, and have effect in respect of the Home Office police forces. The British Transport police regulations can differ from the Home Office regulations only when it is necessary to reflect the unique structure and circumstances of the British Transport police as a national railways police force. 
 By and large, the authority can, with the agreement of the British Transport police, create a modified version of the Home Office regulations that will apply to the force. The Secretary of State has the power to intervene and resolve any disputes in the unlikely event that the process breaks down. The Police Act 1996 established a system whereby the Home Secretary can make regulations for police forces, and it is important that that ability is retained in respect of the British Transport police. 
 There may be occasions when it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make regulations for the British Transport police, and it would be inappropriate for the authority to make them. For example, the Home Secretary has used his equivalent powers to amend the Police Regulations 1995, SI 1995/215, which provide the primary regulations for Home Office police forces. It may not be appropriate for the authority to 
 duplicate all those regulations and apply them to the British Transport police. Instead, the Secretary of State would use his general powers under the clause, and specific powers under clauses 20 to 22 regarding British Transport police senior officers, to reproduce the existing Home Office regulations and apply them to the senior staff of the British Transport police. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about the staff associations mentioned in clause 40(4)(c). The meaning of the term is set out in section 38, which we discussed this morning. I hope that that clarifies matters for the hon. Lady. She asked about the Home Office regulations. Those regulations are applied to the British Transport police through a mixture of conditions of service—partly made by the SRA, as the BTP's employer—force general orders, and the chief constable. That will change once the Bill comes into force. 
 The hon. Lady asked about the feedback from staff associations on clause 40. I am aware that the British Transport police federation's response to the consultation was to welcome the proposals. I am informed that the superintendents associations also agreed with the proposals.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister may answer my question in our discussion of clauses immediately following this one, or perhaps it is so blindingly obvious that I cannot see it, but what is the difference between the statutory regulations and the non-statutory regulations under clause 38? The Minister clearly said that the BTP regulations can differ from the Home Office regulations only when it is appropriate to reflect the differences of the transport police. Bearing in mind the SRA regulations, can the Minister give us an example of the circumstances in which the regulations in clause 40 would apply?

David Jamieson: We cannot predict the circumstances, but a good example would be when regulations are needed in relation to the disciplining of the chief or another senior officer in the BTP. It would be inappropriate for the authority, which is also the employer, to make regulations on a matter of such sensitivity. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make those regulations. The hon. Lady will be aware that the statutory procedures that the Secretary of State introduced would be subject to parliamentary procedures.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Regulations: further appeal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister used a helpful example in his explanation of clause 40. For the purposes of clarification, can he confirm that clause 41 relates specifically to disciplinary procedures? He said that the Secretary of State is being given the power to
 make regulations in relation to disciplinary procedure. That is not immediately clear from the Bill. The clause refers to regulations being able to
''confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal.''
 If jurisdiction is conferred on a court, that would presumably come under one legal basis—perhaps the Police Act 1996. However, if jurisdiction is conferred on a tribunal, I presume that it would be on a different legal basis. What legal basis would that be? 
 Which disciplinary tribunal would handle disciplinary action against a senior officer? Does the provision relate primarily or exclusively to disciplinary procedures? What legal basis would confer jurisdiction on a court or a tribunal, and what would be the implications of those two decisions? Presumably, if it were a serious disciplinary offence, the court could hand out a more severe penalty and possibly pass sentence. However, if the jurisdiction were conferred to a tribunal, would the penalty incurred be lower?

David Jamieson: The previous clause provided a system whereby the authority could make regulations for the Government's operation of the British Transport police. Generally, the authority would be able to take the Home Office regulations and, with the agreement of the BTP, create a modified version for the force. If necessary, we have the powers for the Secretary of State to intervene if appropriate.
 Clause 41 mirrors sections 50 and 84 of the Police Act 1996, which provide for the Home Secretary to make regulations for the process of disciplinary appeals. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 establish procedures for cases in which a member of a Home Office police force may be dealt with by dismissal, requirement to resign, reduction in rank, fine, reprimand or caution. As with regulations for police equipment, it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to make the regulations than the authority. 
 Clause 41(2) could cover a disciplinary offence, but not exclusively; a tribunal such as an employment tribunal might be involved and would handle the matter in a different way from a court.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that clarification, but I am still at sea regarding the legal basis. Does the Minister propose to draft such a regulation? Is there an existing regulation in force applying to industrial tribunals generally? Is there a tribunal relating to police disciplinary matters? When the hon. Gentleman clarified the matter when we debated clause 40, he referred to ''primary regulations'', as used by the Home Secretary when making regulations for police forces. Will he clarify for the Committee the status of a primary regulation, as opposed to a secondary regulation?

David Jamieson: It would be the regulation that the Secretary of State makes under section 41(1).
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Equipment regulations

John Spellar: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in
clause 43, page 18, line 15, at end insert 
 '(including in relation to Scotland)'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments No. 38 to 40 and 45 to 47.

John Spellar: The amendments ensure that the provisions in the Bill are clear regarding their application to the British Transport police in Scotland. Clauses 42 and 43 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the equipment used by the BTP and procedures and practices of the force. The regulations will ensure that the BTP conforms in those areas to other local police forces and can play a full role in the British police service. In particular, the clauses aim to facilitate co-operation between the police forces and joint operations.
 Amendment Nos. 37 and 38 confirm that the regulations made under powers in the Police Act 1996 will have effect with regard to the British Transport police force throughout Great Britain. The 1996 Act also requires Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to inspect and report to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of all Home Office police forces. Clause 60 now provides for the BTP to be inspected as a statutory duty by her Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. 
 Previously, the British Transport police have not fallen under the statutory remit of the inspectorate, but every three years the BTP committee has invited the inspectorate to undertake detailed assessments of the operational performance and organisation of the transport police. The same standards used for Home Office police forces have been, and will continue to be, applied. 
 The inspectorate in England and Wales will continue to be responsible for inspections of the BTP as a whole. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland will be given a statutory duty to inspect the BTP and report to the Secretary of State in so far as the BTP operates in Scotland. The main difference between the BTP and the Home Office police forces will be that the authority will meet the full costs of the inspections. That is in line with other non-Home Office police forces, such as the Ministry of Defence police force, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary and the Isle of Man police force. Inspections of Home Office police forces are centrally funded by the Government. 
 Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 ensure that, for inspections of the BTP in Scotland undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, the authority pays Scottish Ministers, not the Secretary of State. That is because the constabulary is funded by Scottish Ministers. 
 I come now to amendments Nos. 45 to 47. There are numerous references to the British Transport police in current legislation, such as the Police 
 Reform Act 2002. They are listed under schedule 5. The references often refer to the BTP as a body that was established under the British Transport Commission Act 1949. The Bill gives a new statutory basis to the BTP and repeals the provisions creating the BTP in the 1949 Act. The schedule ensures that the references in current legislation to the BTP and the 1949 Act will be treated as references to the British Transport police force as established under part 3. It provides continuity. 
 Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 repeal changes made by the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, so that its impersonation offence applies to British Transport police constables. Similar and indeed wider provision for that offence is made under clause 65(2). The offence will now therefore apply to special constables, too, and to British Transport police constables in Scotland. 
 Amendment No. 47 ensures that references in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 to the British Transport police are treated as references to the police force established under the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister said that the amendments would repeal provisions of earlier Acts and consequential amendments to those Acts. Amendment No. 40 covers the position in which an inspection is carried out by inspectors. Can the Minister confirm that the Scottish Executive will appoint the inspectors? What will be the relationship between the Bill and the orders that can be made under clause 42? Will they be the preserve of the Government as opposed to that of the Scottish Executive? Why were the amendments tabled? Were such proposals an oversight on the part of the Government when the Bill was drafted? During the consultation period, why did no one bring such matters to their attention? Labour Members touched on such issues in earlier proceedings.
 The Library contains a useful book entitled ''Devolution'' in the series ''Modern Legal Studies'', which was written by someone who was a good friend when I was at university. However, as our political differences have grown over the years, we are not in such close contact now. The book elucidates some areas in which there is a distinct lack of clarity. It states: 
''Both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have the power to make laws termed, in both cases, Acts. Neither the Scotland Act nor the Northern Ireland Act provides a definition of this term. Nor does the legislation define the term 'laws'.
 Apparently that is unsurprising as there is no definition of either term in United Kingdom constitutional law. I should have remembered that from when I studied constitutional law at Edinburgh university. It goes on: 
''However, a generally acknowledged distinction is drawn between primary legislation adopted as Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament following 'a series of stages prescribed by Parliamentary Standing Orders' and subordinate legislation (also termed secondary or delegated legislation). Subordinate legislation is defined in the Interpretation Act, 1978 as meaning 'Orders in Council, orders, rules, regulations, schemes, warrants, bye-laws and other instruments made under any Act'. A more general definition 
can be given as legislation 'drafted by government departments under rule making powers conferred on a Minister by an Act of Parliament'.''
 There is a lack of clarity about what constitutes an Act of Parliament and what constitutes a regulation under that Act of Parliament. Would an Act of Parliament passed by the Scottish Parliament be subordinate to any Act of Parliament or regulation passed by the Westminster Parliament? It would be useful if that were clarified before we go on to discuss the content of the clause. Given that the Government took considerable time over the drafting of the Bill, why have they come forward at such a late stage with these amendments?

Mark Lazarowicz: I had intended to intervene on the hon. Lady to ask her to explain succinctly what she was getting at, as I failed to follow her point during her lengthy speech. Can she briefly tell the Committee what is her point?

Anne McIntosh: I thought that my point was clear.

Richard Bacon: Hear, hear.

John Spellar: Perhaps the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) could explain it to us all.

Anne McIntosh: This is the point: in the context of the Bill, concern has been expressed about the status of certain regulations, orders and Acts proposed by the Scottish Executive and passed by the Scottish Parliament, compared with Acts and regulations or orders made under Westminster legislation—such as that before us, once it becomes enacted. I seek concise and succinct clarification on that.

Mark Lazarowicz: My earlier queries were not designed to question the authority of the Scottish Parliament to make laws. It is clear that it can make laws: that is stated in the Scotland Act 1998. My queries were about the relationship between that and this legislation. Why is the hon. Lady concerned that the Scottish Parliament could override this legislation? I cannot see how it could do that.

Anne McIntosh: We come back to the point that has been made by hon. Members of different parties on several occasions. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill. That is demonstrated by the Minister of State's amendments to the clause, which address what is devolved and what is reserved.
 As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) understands the situation clearly enough, I put it to him that as learned a lady as Professor Burrows has elucidated and made a thesis of this lack of clarity, which is why I read that passage from her book to the Committee. 
 If the House of Commons passes the Bill, I am worried that the powers provided by the amendments will lead to less clarity. The relationship between the Scottish Executive and the House is not entirely clear. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some clarification.

John Spellar: That was mildly interesting, although I am not sure whether it was helpful in the context of the amendments, which address important but relatively mundane matters. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament cannot make legislation in reserved areas—those are for the Westminster Parliament. For the sake of clarity, we are talking about matters with which the Secretary of State is able to deal. I should make it clear that the inspection in Scotland will be carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, which is appointed by Scottish Ministers. A debate on the constitutional niceties is interesting, but it is not especially germane to the amendments and their effect on the operations of the British Transport police.

Anne McIntosh: For the sake of clarity, I will return to the point that I made earlier, to which the Minister has blatantly not responded.
 It seems that although the powers are reserved, they will be exercised by HMIC for Scotland. The inspectorate will be appointed by the Scottish Executive, yet if I have understood the Minister correctly—it is quite possible that I have not—the powers are reserved. Surely, under reserved powers the body that should review the work of HMIC is the House of Commons. 
 I put it to the Minister that we are in a curious position. The Government tell us that the powers are reserved, that they are not devolved from the point of view of being inspected and that those who are inspected will—presumably—be appointed, disciplined or removed from office by HMIC for Scotland. I do not see where the opportunities are for the House of Commons. We are told that Parliament has reserved powers, so it should, therefore, be uniquely responsible for hiring and firing these people. I do not see what powers we have to scrutinise that process, so I do not see how the Minister can argue that the powers remain reserved.

John Spellar: Let me make it clear for the hon. Lady that the security of the railways, including the BTP, is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament. The role of the inspectorate is to report on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales. In Scotland, that would be done by the Scottish inspectorate. As I said in a previous intervention, HMIC in Scotland will be given a statutory duty—as opposed to the current procedure—to inspect the BTP and to report to the Secretary of State about how the BTP operates in Scotland.
 The inspectorate in Scotland will report to the Secretary of State and the financing of the organisation will be dealt with by Scottish Ministers. We are letting HMIC in Scotland inspect the BTP in Scotland. That already happens, so there will be continuity. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The clause relates to the power to make statutory regulations regarding equipment. Does it relate solely to the issuing of equipment, or does it include the duty of care to maintain it?
 The Secretary of State has the power to consult both the authority and the chief constable. The Minister may not have heard our concern. Currently, four out of nine members of the authority come from operating companies and others from the industry. This representation will be grossly weakened when the total number of members rises to 13 or more, but the number of representatives from industry remains at four. They regret that while they are being asked to pay for all of this, their level of representation decreases. Opposition Members share that concern. 
 Does the clause relate to the standard of equipment; the issue of equipment; the procurement of equipment; or the regulations by which equipment will be maintained?

Don Foster: Common sense dictates that there will be occasions when the British Transport police will work in conjunction with county police forces. We have discussed that on a number of occasions. Can the Minister assure us that the Home Secretary will be included in the consultations about making the regulations? Clearly it makes a great deal of sense to ensure that there is commonality on standards and types of equipment between the BTP and other police forces operated by the Home Office.

John Spellar: Let me deal first with the issue of representation. I disagree with the hon. Member for Vale of York. She seems to be saying that there will be a confrontational committee with voting blocks, rather than a group of people who have the best interests of policing the railways at heart. As we pointed out, the minimum number of representatives by no means prescribes the maximum number. Some of those covered under other categories could, of course, be representatives from the railway industry. As the hon. Lady knows, we have also undertaken to consider provisions relating to those working in the industry.
 On the equipment issue, the clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that the forces use equipment that has been approved. That can include vehicles, information technology systems, batons, incapacitant sprays, head gear and protective 
 clothing. That power allows for much more interoperability between forces, an exchange of equipment, when necessary, and common training when that might be of mutual advantage. All forces would want to adopt—and spread—best practice for the maintenance of that equipment. The clause enables the British Transport police and the Home Office police forces to use more standardised equipment, with all the advantages that will flow from that.

Anne McIntosh: That is helpful, and I am grateful for the clarification. I am sure that the Minister's list was not meant to be exhaustive; I notice that it did not refer to radios. Certainly, in my police force area of North Yorkshire, radio is extremely important, particularly when an officer sets off on his own. I would have thought that the use of radios, when policing moving objects such as trains or people on railway concourse areas, would be extremely important.
 The Minister missed our debate this morning, which I found interesting and helpful. I confess that I do not have in-depth knowledge of the subject—that is a grave reflection on me—and this is a useful opportunity for us to become fully cognisant of what equipment the Government have in mind. This morning, the Under-Secretary told us that the British Transport police are equipped with CS gas, but the Minister did not mention it just now. I am sure that that was a minor omission.

John Spellar: I referred to incapacitant sprays, which I assume includes CS gas, although not all incapacitant sprays are CS gas.

Anne McIntosh: Some might say that nasal sprays were also incapacitants, because one has to stop to use them. [Interruption.] Indeed, that is correct, as one athlete found to his and his country's disadvantage this week. In any case, I hear what the Minister says, and I am grateful to him.
 Would the Government keep an open mind if the British Transport police asked to equip themselves with firearms? I refer to a branch that is trained in that area. I am not necessarily calling for such powers, but we heard today how security has been increased at airports, and the Home Secretary has stated that the Government are mindful of the fact that all transport modes and facilities—transport infrastructure is, I think, the expression that he used—are particularly vulnerable. I commend the Government for increasing security at airports. If, in the near future, the Government are minded to increase the level of security as I urged the Under-Secretary to consider, they must bear in mind that the three London airports are accessed primarily by train.

Alan Hurst: Order. The Bill does not cover airports.

Anne McIntosh: I am coming to the killer point, Mr. Hurst.
 The Heathrow express, the Gatwick express and the Stansted express take the majority of passengers to the three London airports. If we increase security at airports, we will leave the security aspects on the trains 
 and the railway stations more vulnerable. Airport policing is paid for by the airports, and transport policing is paid for by the railway industry. This morning, we discussed which three categories paid for that. If a review were made of the standard of equipment, and a request for firearms were made, would the Minister envisage any difficulties for the transport industry in paying for the equipment? After all, it is operating in a tough climate at present.

John Spellar: The hon. Lady will be aware from previous debates that the British Transport police will participate in the new national radio system. The Government have provided BTP with about £2.3 million for its part of the project. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt with the potential arming of British Transport police and said that we have no plans to do that at present. However, we have not ruled out making such a decision in future.

Anne McIntosh: If the level of equipment issued was increased radically and the British Transport police had to be issued with flak jackets and guns, would the Minister envisage the industry having difficulty paying for it?

John Spellar: As for the funding of any police force in respect of new requirements under national security, the Government will review the matter when decisions have to be made.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Regulation of procedure and practice

Amendment made: No. 38, in 
clause 43, page 18, line 15, at end insert 
 '(including in relation to Scotland)'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I draw attention to the co-operation of the British Transport police with other police forces. I think that the London underground is policed by the Metropolitan police or is that the preserve of the British Transport police?

John Spellar: The London underground is policed by the British Transport police. It is a major part of its operation.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that the British Transport police might want to link up with the Metropolitan police? If he and his colleagues were to learn that that was the case, what would be their view?
 If the Secretary of State were to be minded to make regulations under the clause, can the Minister confirm that they would simply transfer the legal basis established by the Police Act 1996 and the responsibilities of the Strategic Rail Authority to the British Transport police authority? 
 Earlier, we tabled an amendment to make it clear that references in the Bill to the police force refer to the 
 British Transport police force. I assume that that is the case in clause 43(2)(c). 
 I did not make it up when I said that the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police might be interested in collaborating across certain geographic boundaries. With regard to jurisdiction, the geographic boundaries are becoming blurred. The Bill could clarify that matter, or if it already makes things clear, the Minister may wish to explain how it does so. 
 Most people use railway links to access an airport: there is no longer a regular bus service to Heathrow. It would be possible to clarify further the relationship between the respective police forces to allay current concerns. Does the Minister see no cause for concern in the blurring of their distinct jurisdictions and responsibilities? Under clause 43, would the Government consider introducing a regulation that specifically sets out the relationship between the respective forces? 
 This is the most graphic description of the problem that I can think of: I witnessed a theft at Brussels airport after which the thief exited the airport by rail and returned to the centre of Brussels. I think that the Minister can see what I am driving at. If a similar incident were to occur at a London airport—or a worse offence, such as a terrorist attack or a sexual assault—would the airport police be allowed to pursue the perpetrators on to the rail link that takes them back into the centre of London under the current legislation, or would regulations be required?

Alan Hurst: Order. The hon. Lady must turn her mind away from airports as much as she possibly can.

Anne McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Hurst, for that stricture.
 I hope that the point that I am trying to make is sufficiently clear: police forces will cross each other's jurisdictions and clarity is required. Does the Minister think that there is sufficient clarity in the present proposals?

Don Foster: It has been alleged that an alliance has been developing between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats during the Committee stage. I regret that I created a small schism among us by voting in opposition to the hon. Lady a few moments ago. I fear that that schism will grow slightly in view of the hon. Lady's recent remarks.
 We debated in some detail this morning the possible takeover of the work of the British Transport police in policing the London Underground. That matter is directly relevant to the clause, which relates to the question of inter-force co-operation. Perhaps it would have been easier to have left the matter alone. I thought that we had had a clear assurance from the Under-Secretary that the issue had been considered, that a decision had been made that no takeover would take place and that there was to be growing co-operation between the two police forces. It might be helpful if that were repeated and put firmly on the record. 
 During lunch, it was drawn to my attention that a transport scrutiny committee of the Greater London 
 Authority has, in the last few days, proposed that the Mayor should consider making a proposal on such a takeover. It will consult the Government in due course. It would be helpful, and it might save the Mayor a lot of time, if the Minister could put it on the record that were the Mayor to bring that forward, the Government would rebuff him firmly. However, the issue of inter-police co-operation is important in transport matters. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York raised some interesting points about co-operation between the Metropolitan police authority and the British Transport police, between the Metropolitan police authority and the airport police and between all three forces. We could go further. I have been impressed by what I have learned about the work that the Metropolitan police are doing to try to reduce crime on 25 selected bus routes in London. That stems from work to which the Government committed themselves after their attention was drawn to the increasing problems and dangers faced by bus drivers. The issue of co-operation draws into stark relief the rather peculiar situation of all the modes of transport—air, bus, tube and railway—being dealt with by the different police forces that are assigned to them. The clause is important because it enables those bodies to co-operate. I was pleased on behalf of British Transport police to hear from one of the officers who worked on the London buses project. His firm view was that the British Transport police are better equipped, better qualified and better trained to carry out that work. Praise should go to the BTP for that. 
 We support the clause, and we hope that the Minister will say clearly that any talk of a takeover of the British Transport police's work on the London Underground can be got rid of, dispatched and forgotten because it is not going to happen.

John Spellar: In answer the hon. Lady's question about the rights of police to act in various circumstances, protocols issued under Home Office circular 25 of 2002 make explicit how and when BTP and local police constables should act.
 I understand that my colleague the Under-Secretary dealt with the matter of British Transport police and the Metropolitan police this morning. I reiterate that the Government have been looking at ways to improve the already close co-operation between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police. 
 The merger of London Underground with the Metropolitan police was one of several options explored in conjunction with the British Transport Police, the Metropolitan Police and Transport for London. The Government have certainly been pleased with progress towards operational integration made this year and with the closer co-operation achieved between police forces. We are considering the situation and neither ruling out nor pursuing any particular option. Of course, in the event that any changes were proposed, such as in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), by the GLA or by Transport for London, they would be subject to wide consultation with all interested parties. Those would include not only the bodies that I mentioned but rail industry passenger groups, policing agencies and 
 groups outside London that have a considerable interest in policing in London, as well as in the British Transport Police nationally.

Anne McIntosh: Clearly, this is a matter for debate because we have stimulated the hon. Member for Bath into pursuing it.
 The Home Secretary briefly referred to the Wheeler report in his statement in the House in response to the urgent question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). This is an area for continuing debate. The hon. Member for Bath disclosed his understanding that the GLA had already gone some way down the road, so the Government should have a view. I am unsure whether the Minister answered the hon. Gentleman's question about what would happen if the Mayor, whose office is coming up for election in the not-too-distant future, were to propose such a change in jurisdiction, requiring a different police force to take over.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Minister did not give us the clear ruling out that I hoped for. Perhaps it would help the Committee if the hon. Lady joined me in supporting the argument that such a move would not be sensible. Were she to do so, she could be confident in the knowledge that the net effect of a similar move in New York was that fewer police patrolled the New York underground than had done before the merger. For the sake of the travelling public, I am sure that she would want to support me in arguing that the move should not take place.

Anne McIntosh: Had the hon. Gentleman been so moved to join me and my hon. Friends in rejecting the dreadful amendment that we considered earlier, we might have had a more open mind towards his attractive proposal. I understand that the issue exercises the various police forces. It is obviously also of interest to the GLA and to the present and future Mayors of London.
 I have tried to raise the issue that has been put to me—I am sure that it must also have been put to the Minister and his colleagues—that difficulties arise where there is potential for different responses in geographically proximate areas from which railways access airports. I hoped for some reassurance from the Minister. If he is saying that the regulations will provide clarification, that is helpful. This has been a useful debate, to which we may wish to return in the context of the Wheeler report and any recommendations made by the GLA.

John Spellar: It is rare for the Government to rule out the possibility of future organisational change. I am unsure what position the Liberal Democrats on the GLA take on the issue—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Bath would enlighten me.

Don Foster: I shall help the right hon. Gentleman with pleasure. When I made my comments about the GLA, I should have pointed that the committee that made the recommendation is chaired by a Liberal Democrat, Lynne Featherstone. However, the Liberal Democrats do not have a majority on that committee,
 and I understand—if I am incorrect in this, I will inform the Minister as soon as I know it—that the Liberal Democrats on the committee did not support the recommendation, even though the chair is Liberal Democrat.

John Spellar: She obviously did not see fit to resign over it. [Laughter.]
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Code of practice: authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Under-Secretary may be able to help us. What is the situation regarding the Strategic Rail Authority? Does a code of practice exist? [Interruption] During the extensive consultation period—the results of which I have not had the opportunity to analyse in great detail—were extensive comments made on the code of practice? Is having a code of practice for the authority a new idea, or is it standard practice?
 Were the majority of comments favourable to the idea of a code of practice, or were concerns expressed? I note that there are only two codes of practice, and we will consider the second one shortly. What opportunities has the Secretary of State had to review how extensive any present code of practice would be? Is it envisaged that there will be any limits to the Secretary of State's power in developing such a code? Who will monitor it? Will it be the Secretary of State?

David Jamieson: The Home Secretary may issue a code of practice concerning local police authorities in the discharge of their functions. For example, a code of practice currently exists regarding financial management in Home Office police authorities. The clause applies that code to the British Transport Police authority.
 The British Transport Police authority is slightly different from other police authorities, reflecting its responsibility for a specialist railways police force funded by the railways industry. The financial base of local police authorities is rooted in local government, so it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to modify any code of practice issued by the Home Secretary under subsection (3) before it is applied to the British Transport Police authority. 
 The clause allows the Secretary of State to issue his own code of practice to the authority. That may be necessary because of differences between the British Transport Police authority and local police authorities, particularly the links that local police authorities have with local government structures. 
 Under subsection (1), a specific code would be issued to the British Transport police authority only if it were necessary in unusual circumstances. It would 
 normally be the case that the code as set out in part 3, which would be the modified code of the Home Office, would be that which would apply. Therefore, the code would come to the House only if the Secretary of State took the power to issue it.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that clarification. He used the expression ''unusual circumstances''. It would be helpful to have clarification, because it is much easier to deal with specifics, rather than vague descriptions of what may be usual or unusual. What may seem unusual to the hon. Gentleman may seem perfectly normal to me. Words such as reasonable, normal, and usual take on different concepts and meanings. We are now reaching the core of the code of practice.
 The four representatives of the industry out of the nine who sit on the current authority reflect its funding. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which parts of the industry are represented and which parts are not? For example, does Network Rail have a representative? Do the train operating companies have one, or more than one representative, and does London Underground have a representative? 
 I hear what the hon. Gentleman said about how the Home Office rules on financial management apply to local authority arrangements for funding local police forces. The code of practice will be different only in so far as it relates to a transport police force. I should be interested to hear how the code of practice will apply to the authority. Who are the current representatives from the industry? Does the Under-Secretary envisage any change to the authority's composition, bearing in mind that it will have only four representatives of the industry. 
 I think that I understand the point that the Under-Secretary made about the code of practice, in that it will differ only in so far as it relates to a different police force, but can he be more specific about how that difference will be reflected in the code of practice? Which parts of the code of practice relating to a local police force would not apply to the transport police?

David Jamieson: As I said, the different financial arrangements with local authorities that would relate to the transport police would be one example. The hon. Lady asked for specific examples when the Secretary of State may issue his code of practice under part 1. It is difficult to be specific in the Bill. It would happen when it was thought that the code of practice that was issued under part 3 was inappropriate. We do not anticipate that that method would be used readily. When the code of practice was inappropriate, the Secretary of State would have that fall-back position.
 I did not respond to two points that the hon. Lady made in her previous contribution. She asked whether there was a code under the SRA. No code operates under the present arrangement. She asked about consultation. No concerns have been expressed about it. I hope that I have cleared up the matter. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Code of practice: Chief Constable

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I think that I heard the Under-Secretary say that the provisions of this clause are similar to those in clause 44, although this clause goes further in some respects. I wonder about the extent to which the code of practice already applies to the chief constable. The Minister did not help me much on that matter in his previous reply. Perhaps he would like to send me a letter, if that is in order, to say who the representatives on the authority are, as that would be helpful. However, I know that we have moved on, so I do not know whether that would be appropriate.

David Jamieson: I am here to be helpful to the hon. Lady. The members of the BTP committee are a chairman, appointed by the Strategic Rail Authority, two people appointed by train operating companies, one person from Network Rail, one from London Underground Ltd., one from a rail passengers committee, one from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and two independent members.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the clarification. It is disarming that the Under-Secretary is so charming and can so easily find the right piece of paper at the right moment. I shall perhaps in future quote him on what he said about being there to help.
 I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can satisfy me as to whether the clause simply transfers a code of practice that existed under the SRA to the BTP committee, or whether it goes further. I fear that it may go further in some regards. As one might expect, I warmly welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will have to lay any code or revision made under the clause before Parliament. I sometimes suffer from short-term memory loss, and this may be one of those occasions, but I have not, in the short time that I have had the privilege to serve in the House, ever noticed a code of practice being laid before Parliament. I wondered what the procedure would be. Would it be introduced by statutory instrument, and if so, would a negative or affirmative resolution procedure be used? It would be of great interest to Opposition Members to have the opportunity to consider any such code. It is extremely important that chief constables, whether of our local police forces or—more relevantly, under the Bill—of the British Transport police, know the code or rules within which they are operating. 
 Given that we debated the matter this morning, and given the statement made by the Home Secretary this afternoon, it is particularly pertinent that the laying of such a code of practice before Parliament would especially apply when anything in the publication might be considered to be against the interests of national security. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can be a little more specific. He will obviously have detected that the level of security for a form of transport infrastructure that you do not wish me to refer to by name, Mr. Hurst—the Under-Secretary will, I think, have grasped which type—was 
 a source of great concern to us. Conservatives, led by the shadow Home Secretary, were disappointed that the Government did not voluntarily field a Minister, preferably the Home Secretary, to come and inform us of that. 
 Being of a nervous disposition, I think that it always puts one's mind at rest if one knows before embarking on a flight—or, obviously, train journey for the purposes of this Bill, Mr. Hurst—whether there is a threat to national security. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary will put our mind at rest. The Secretary of State may be minded to make an oral or written statement on the matter, instead of making it the subject of a statutory instrument. I do not know whether members of the Committee have had experience of the way in which a code of practice works, but it is alarming to think that it could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, or the prosecution of offenders. I am not sure how such a situation could arise, but I would feel somewhat alarmed if that were the case. 
 It would be highly preferable that a person's safety was not put in jeopardy. Will the measures envisaged in the clause relate to individuals going about their business on trains or in a railway station, or to the safety of a serving police officer? The Minister has been so helpful this afternoon and it would enable us to have a better understanding of the clause if he could provide such information. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will, as set out in clause 45, lay before Parliament the revision of such a code of practice. I should like to know what procedure will be used, for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom have been around for longer than I have in this place. We await the Under-Secretary's response with bated breath.

David Jamieson: I have been beguiled by the hon. Lady's words this afternoon and I shall try to respond to her in kind. The Home Secretary may issue a code of practice concerning the discharge of functions by chief police officers. The hon. Lady asked about the provisions of the code for chief constables. They are brand new and have only just come into force.

Anne McIntosh: I am sorry to interrupt the Under-Secretary, but will he tell us which Act or order the new provisions were made under?

David Jamieson: I shall certainly do that. I shall complete my point and then return to the matter.
 The clause will apply the code to the chief constable of the British Transport police, but with modifications to suit its needs. If necessary, the Secretary of State may issue a code solely for the British Transport police chief constable. It will ensure that the specific circumstances of the British Transport police can be taken into account, but it would be used only when the existing code could not be applied, as modified, to the British Transport police chief constable or when it would be appropriate to do so. 
 The provision for the Home Office chief constables was introduced into the Police Act 1996 by the Police Reform Act 2002. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is so busy writing that she did not hear me saying that.

Anne McIntosh: I am writing down what the Under-Secretary is saying.

David Jamieson: I apologise to the hon. Lady. She is paying far more attention to matters than I thought.
 No codes of practice are being issued, but it is expected that codes on health and safety and the use of force will be issued in draft later in the year. As for where they will end up, changes will not be made to primary or secondary legislation. The codes will be put in the House of Commons Library, as are many announcements made by Secretaries of State. Because no change will be made to legislation, it would not be appropriate for them to be dealt with by the statutory instrument procedure.

Anne McIntosh: I was hanging on the Under-Secretary's every word. To use marketing speak, I am delighted that we heard it here first. The Government will be mindful of the fact that they might have to tweak the code of practice for the transport police.
 I was very interested to hear about the mechanism that will be used. The Under-Secretary is right—we would expect that, because he is so well briefed and rehearsed—that Ministers and Secretaries of State frequently simply place things in the Library. Perhaps that is why I find myself fixed almost permanently in the Library, because if one is not there on a particular day one might miss something. Documents mysteriously appear and disappear from various desktops. The Library has four rooms, plus a fifth reference room. 
 I make a plea to the Under-Secretary. He said that the Government would not propose to change primary or secondary legislation. However, my hon. Friends and I urge the Government to go a little further and use the new mechanism of written statements, although the official Opposition did not welcome the mechanism as warmly as the Government would have liked. That would be helpful, and it was good enough when the latest Strategic Rail Authority progress report on the 10-year transport plan was published. That was a devastating announcement, because it overturned the press statement that the chairman of the SRA made in December about the projected increase of passenger numbers and freight transport. The statement was reversed by two documents that we were informed about on the Order Paper. I was surprised that the Secretary of State felt that the documents were so unimportant that they justified just two lines to say that they were available in the Library. 
 I took the opportunity to avail myself of the Secretary of State's invitation to purloin the documents from the Library. There was only one document, but being a canny lassie, I decided to make exploratory investigations at the Vote Office. The investigations bore fruit. I obtained two documents—an explanatory document and a main document—from only a cursory investigation of the Vote Office. It is curious that both documents were not available in the Library, as we were told in the written statement. 
 Although there are defects in the written statement procedure, it is preferable to procedures used previously. However, perhaps the Department would 
 be minded to make information available through written statements, rather than hon. Members having haphazardly to happen on extremely important documents in the Library. 
 I listened with great care to the Under-Secretary's reply, and I regret that he was not as helpful as he meant to be. May I give him a further opportunity to help me to understand how the safety of a person—a private person or a serving police officer—might be jeopardised? Under subsection (5), in what circumstances could publication be deemed to be against the interests of national security? In serious circumstances, will the Secretary of State or a Minister come to the Dispatch Box and inform the House about publications, rather than placing them in the Library or using a written statement to say that they are placed in the Library?

David Jamieson: On that last point, in future the code of practice could set out courses of action for the British Transport police—how to react to certain terrorist activities, for example. I do not think that the hon. Lady is suggesting that that code of practice should be published, put on the Department website and flashed round the world for everyone to see, which would clearly be inappropriate in those circumstances.
 Equally, in certain circumstances, releasing the code could put people in jeopardy and the clause catches situations in which that could happen. Such a thing would be unusual, but it could happen. 
 The hon. Lady said that she first heard about the chief constables' code of practice in the Committee. I heard about it first during proceedings on the Police Reform Act 2002, which came into force on 1 October 2002. However, the Home Secretary will place the code before Parliament in due course, and I dare say that he will also place it in the Library. I will certainly examine the procedures in the House, which are relatively new, to see whether we would issue a written statement. I am open to suggestions about how we can make procedures more open. I often hear about information being placed in the Library, and I have a vision of desks and cupboards groaning under the weight of the things placed there. If it helps, we will certainly consider the way in which we make announcements. 
 It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the hon. Lady said that the code would be a change to secondary legislation. However, we would use only powers under the primary legislation to introduce the code. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Service outside Police Force

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I will be frank with the Minister because, in his inimitable way, he has been frank with us. I am trying to understand the purpose of clause 46. Does the clause envisage a situation in which a
 constable could serve with a different police force? Will the Minister explain how the clause differs from what the hon. Member for Bath envisages? Reverting to the provision in clause 43 about ''facilitating inter-force co-operation'' perhaps the Minister will tell us that clause 46 is part of enabling that provision.
 Will there be scope for a member of the British Transport police to be seconded to another police force? Equally, could a member of another police force be seconded to the British Transport police? Assuming that they are employed under similar conditions, there would be merit in having inter- changeability of personnel, as long as it did not happen all at once. That would be welcome. 
 What is the 
''structure and circumstance of the Police Force''
 to which subsection (2) refers? Does it merely recognise that the British Transport police are, in some respects, organised differently from other police forces, which might pose a problem? I truly want to understand the clause because the question asked by the hon. Member for Bath was a good one. I thought at one stage that there was a degree of clarity, but at this point I am not sure that the position is as clear as I first thought. Are the Government actively pressing the possibility of secondment between the forces? That is regarded as potentially a good idea and we need a pause in the pace of change because of it.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those questions. I understand that the measure relates specifically to a member of the British Transport police operating outside the British Transport police authority's jurisdiction. Presumably, it is likely that such operations will take place in conjunction with another police force, although that will not always be the case. The hon. Lady is right to say that I have already raised the question of what such a person's status would be and whether, if they were a British Transport police constable, they would still have all the rights, duties and responsibilities of a constable while acting for another body. I thought that the answer that I received from the Minister was pretty clear, but as the hon. Lady said, it might be useful to hear it restated. We could check later to see whether the Under-Secretary was consistent in his answers.

David Jamieson: The Police Act 1996 ensures that police officers who undertake a temporary secondment outside their own police force with a specified organisation whose work is relevant to policing are not penalised in terms of promotion or rank when they return. The Act also makes provision for how members of a police force would be treated for disciplinary purposes while on secondment.
 The clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that replicated that provision for British Transport police officers. However, it is perhaps not as wide-ranging as the hon. Member for Vale of York thinks it is. It is quite narrowly focused. It would allow British Transport police to be seconded, for example, to a county police force and vice versa. Police officers may be seconded to other police forces for particular purposes and for special reasons, although I will not elaborate at length on 
 those. The provision would protect their job and status when they return to the British Transport police.

Anne McIntosh: It is good to know that the Minister is sticking to his brief and that he is not contradicting his earlier statements. His response was helpful. I would welcome a certain degree of secondment to other forces. I think that that would be useful. The clause is positive.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady is right. There has been a degree of consistency in the Minister's answers. Would she like to join me in pressing the Minister to make it absolutely clear that when a British Transport police constable or officer is operating in conjunction with another force, they will still have all the rights of arrest, detainment and so on, without any difficulty? I assume that that is the case, but it would be helpful if it were on the record.

Anne McIntosh: I think that we are becoming confused about jurisdiction and secondment.

David Jamieson: In the circumstances in which the clause was drafted, the answer to that question is yes.

Anne McIntosh: This triumvirate is becoming rather alarming. I take it that the Minister is confirming what the hon. Member for Bath suggested, which is that British Transport police officers will retain—[Interruption.] No, I am not talking about secondment. I shall stay with jurisdiction. As I understand it, if an officer works in co-operation with another police force, without being seconded, he will retain all the rights and powers pertaining to his jurisdiction as a British Transport police officer.

Don Foster: I think that the Minister's answer was a clear yes and I am grateful for that.

Anne McIntosh: It is very nice that we are all friends. Before I cause any more confusion, I wish to say that the provisions are potentially welcome, although we will continue to monitor, mindful of the fact that—as was the case with regard to an earlier clause—the codes of practice have yet to come into effect, because they may have a bearing.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Policing objectives: Authority

Don Foster: This is my moment of glory: I shall not move Amendment No. 12.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Why did the hon. Member for Bath choose not to move that amendment? I am sure that I did not hear him say that he thought that it was a mistake.
 I am delighted that we have moved on to the part of part 3 that deals with police planning. Presumably, given its title, clause 47 should be seen in conjunction with the policing objectives set out by the Secretary of State in clause 48, the railways policing plan of clause 49 and the performance targets set in clause 50. 
 I understand that the Home Secretary currently has powers under the Police Act 1996 to set policing priorities for England and Wales. Those powers direct authorities and police forces on where they should concentrate their efforts. Police authorities are required to publish an annual policing plan and a best value performance plan to set out how those priorities are being tackled in each police area. Will the Minister confirm that clause 47 is intended to make those arrangements appropriate to the priorities set for the policing objectives of the British Transport police force? I understand that the present arrangements as proposed in the consultation document take the provisions relating to the authority in respect of policing objectives out of the Police Act 1996 and apply them in clause 47. It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify that. 
 I understand that the Local Government Act 1999 allows the Home Secretary to set best value performance indicators for police authorities. Short of popping down to the Library to find out how that is defined in the Library standard note, I wonder if the Minister could spare a moment to explain how best value in the British Transport police force, which is effectively a service industry, can be monitored. That is a challenging concept. How has that operated since 1999? 
 For regular police forces, I understand that the Home Secretary sets the performance indicators after consultation with police authorities and police forces and that those indicators currently cover the whole range of issues that authorities face, from their organisational efficiency to the make-up of their force with regard to gender and ethnicity—what the Americans call diversity—to the levels of crime reported and detected in general and specific terms. 
 The majority of those indicators will be deemed appropriate for the British Transport police authority and the British Transport police. If some are deemed not relevant or significant to the specialist railway police force, can the Minister tell us which they are? 
 I understand that the original provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 did not cover railway matters, and that under the current arrangements the Secretary of State does not set performance indicators for the British Transport police. I assume that clause 47 and the following provisions are intended to transfer the powers to the Secretary of State. 
 If the British Transport police committee voluntarily adopts relevant performance indicators currently set by the Home Secretary, will the Minister confirm that there will be an alteration and that the British Transport police authority will take over the committee's role? I imagine that the policing objectives that we want the authority to set will broadly reflect those set by the Home Secretary for local police forces. Will the Minister indicate whether there will be specific policing objectives for the British Transport police? Will targets be set for reducing the incidence of crime in the same way as the Home Secretary sets targets for 
 reducing gun crime, violent crime, street crime, burglaries, rape, assaults and general crime? What specific crimes would be included in the policing objectives under the clause? With regard to the national policing plan, will there be great disparities between the BTP's policing objectives and those for the regular police forces?

David Jamieson: The clause closely follows the provisions of the Police Act 1996 that govern the setting of objectives and related performance targets for local police forces. The clause will apply similar requirements to the British Transport police.
 To respond to one of the hon. Lady's initial questions, the clause replicates section 7 of the Police Act 1996 and requires the authority to set objectives for the BTP each year. The objectives must be consistent with any objectives set by the Secretary of State for the policing of the railways. Police authorities for local police forces have similar requirements. The authority must consult the chief constable before setting objectives and must consider views obtained from public consultation with the railways industry, the travelling public and the wider community. That is consistent with the position of local police force authorities. 
 When setting objectives, the British Transport police authority must have regard to the national policing plan and any objectives set by the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996. That is designed to ensure consistency with wider policing objectives. I hope that that responds to several of the hon. Lady's points about how the BTP's objectives would fit in the national picture. Clearly, specific objectives would be inappropriate. For example, a target on reducing burglary would be less appropriate for the BTP because few domestic properties come within its purview. 
 The hon. Lady also asked about the BTP and best value. The BTP would comply with the Home Secretary's best value indicators when that was relevant; that would be monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Best value reviews will be carefully monitored and any indicators appropriate to the BTP would also be monitored.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister's response was satisfactory as far as it went, but I am slightly disappointed that he did not respond to concerns about diversity. We talk about gender and ethnicity in relation to the police, and some forces make records of features of specific victims.
 I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—and most members of the Committee—have been contacted by the Royal National Institute of the Blind. Clauses 47 to 52, especially clause 47, which deals with policing objectives, mention the police authority and the Secretary of State setting policing objectives, and the construction of a three-year strategy plan. The Minister must be mindful that for blind and partially-sighted people—and, I am sure, others who are less able, including those who are hard of hearing and those who are not so mobile—one of the biggest concerns about travelling by train is fear of attack. The 
 presence of a white cane draws attention to their disability, and, in the words of the RNIB, is like 
''waving the white flag of surrender to a mugger.'' 
Visually impaired people have been subject to some horrendous attacks when travelling on trains. Some of the reports are graphic and very disturbing. One person travelling with a guide dog was on a train; some youths set next to him and started to harass him, making loud barking noises at the dog and using abusive language when asked to stop; then, they proceeded to throw things at the dog. While another passenger went to look for a guard, the youths started lighting matches and waving them in the person's face. When the guard arrived, the youths denied doing anything wrong and insisted that the gentleman was making up the allegations. They said, 
''What did you see me do, you can't 'cos you're blind so you don't know what we're doing''.
 That sort of behaviour is particularly regrettable and unacceptable. 
 I make the plea to the Minister and his Department to add some objectives to the list of objected. Women are probably already mentioned, but there could be a specific reference to women travelling. There have recently been some awful attacks on women in all parts of the country. Such attacks do not happen solely in the south-east—there have been some horrendous and well-publicised attacks in the north. If we want more people to travel by train, it is important that they feel safe doing so. I wonder whether the Minister is minded to set specific guidelines in respect of people who are disabled, less mobile, partially sighted or hard of hearing. That would be welcome. 
 In the view of the RNIB, progress in dealing with crimes committed against disabled people is hampered by the fact that when details of a victim or perpetrator are recorded on the police computer, disability is not recorded in the same way as race. Policing objectives under the clause will probably refer to gender and ethnicity, but they could also include disability and gender—women are not in the same category as disabled people, but, obviously, they would like to feel safer on trains. We should have regard to the plea of the RNIB. 
 The Minister might not be able to confirm this, but I am sure that he would wish to discuss with his colleagues the fact that the Metropolitan police are introducing the practice of recording on their computer details of any victim's or perpetrator's disability. Has the Minister received any representations from the RNIB and others that would persuade his Department to do the same? I plead for the policing objectives in clause 47 to embrace the less able, too.

David Jamieson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to air some of these matters. It is the primary duty of the authority to ensure the efficient and effective policing of the railways by the British Transport police, and the authority has the responsibility to set objectives for doing so. When carrying out those functions, the authority will need to balance the policing needs of the rail industry with
 those of people who use the railways, including vulnerable people, especially those who are disabled or blind.
 The hon. Lady asked about best value. It might be helpful to consider the best value performance indicators and objectives set out for the British Transport police in 2002–03. I quote from the best value performance and policing plan for 2002–03, in which objectives are set in respect of violence against the person. The plan states: 
''This objective includes violent sexual offences.''
 I hope that that would include the ambition to reduce violence against all people, including those who are vulnerable. The objectives also include targets for the British Transport police in respect of robbery, vehicle crime, railway destruction, vandalism offences, policing football and managing fatalities. The section headed ''Best value 4-year Corporate Plan'' states the objectives of each of the reviews under the subheading ''Progress on Best Value Reviews 2001–02''. The section headed ''Community and Race Relations'' states as an objective to 
''Evaluate the retention, development and progression of minority ethnic staff within the Force.''
 That will be good news to the hon. Lady. The British Transport police will comply with targets or Home Office statements on diversity. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 - Policing objectives: Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to air our serious concerns about the proposal.
 I hope that the Minister will explain the present situation to the Committee. I understand that the Strategic Rail Authority will moderate and rule on the British Transport Police Authority in this regard. I believe that under the current arrangement the Secretary of State may not enjoy the power of direction, and it would be helpful to know the position. The clause gives the Secretary of State a power of direction over the authority to set objectives for policing the railways. The only people to be consulted on the issuing of such a direction would be the authority and the chief constable. Subsection (4) refers to Scotland. 
 The railway safety levy, which we will discuss in clause 102, is considered by the industry to be a tax, effectively. The industry is therefore raising money for increased security and the policing of the railways. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for explaining who the rail industry representatives were. However, I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the concerns put to me by the industry, which believes that the powers given in clause 48 are wide-ranging. 
 I am always sceptical when a Secretary of State is given powers of direction, as he has been over the rail regulator. The previous Secretary of State was swift to 
 tell the rail regulator in no uncertain terms that he was minded to use that power of direction. We have difficulty with granting such a power for the reasons given by the Under-Secretary. The Home Secretary has always been clear that, as the head of the force, the chief constable should decide the operational objectives. The chief constable should be given similar operational powers for the British Transport police. 
 Under clause 48, the Secretary of State is apparently given sweeping powers that do not seem to be curtailed or proscribed in any way. Obviously, the Secretary of State will receive representations from Scottish Ministers on the matter. I am sure that that will put the Under-Secretary's mind at rest about policing the railways in Scotland. Surely the Government would wish to give operational direction and control as far as possible to the respective chief constables in Scotland, England and Wales. 
 What is the thinking behind the clause? Why is the operational autonomy of the chief constables—monitored and overseen by the authority—being removed? What circumstances would lead to the power of direction? Perhaps I am wrong and there are existing circumstances in which such a power of direction exists, but the power in clause 48 seems to be extensive. 
 What did the Government have in mind when they chose to go down the path set out in clause 48? Presumably there was a consultation process to discover the views of the industry. I would be surprised if the industry expressed its overwhelming support in that consultation process. Will the Minister confirm that the representations that he received were not overwhelmingly in support of such a power of direction, and will he explain the thinking behind the clause? Why does the industry feel aggrieved? I am sure that it has had opportunities to discuss the matter at some length with the Government, especially in the extensive consultation, but the industry, through the Association of Train Operating Companies, has shown that it is concerned. I believe that the independence and autonomy of the authority, the chief constable and the police force may be put at risk, and the people paying for it are being compromised by not having sufficient representation in the consultation process. We must bear in mind that their representation will decrease dramatically from four in nine to four in 13 members of the authority.

John Spellar: I fear that the hon. Lady may be getting confused. First, she spoke on several occasions about directions to the chief constable, but the clause states clearly that directions will be made to the authority. Secondly, she asked about the thinking behind the clause. I can only refer her to the fact that the clause follows the provisions of the Police Act 1996. I recall that my party was not in government at that time, so the Act was passed by her party to apply to local police forces and to govern the setting of objectives and related performance targets. Clause 48 merely applies similar requirements to the British Transport police, and the power is no wider than the
 equivalent for the Home Secretary under section 37 of the 1996 Act. There is definitely a degree of confusion.
 For the purposes of explanation, I should say that we expect that the power will be used only in limited circumstances. Nevertheless, it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to set objectives for the British Transport police authority because he is accountable to Parliament for its activities. However, it is also right that before doing so, the Secretary of State should consult the authority and the chief constable, as well as considering the views of Scottish Ministers about objectives for policing the railways in Scotland, for reasons that we have covered several times. 
 I should also say to the hon. Lady that 11 train companies and organisations responded to the consultation process, and none raised direct concerns about the power in its response.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister was obviously right to commend the Police Act 1996. My party was then sitting where he is sitting, and his party was sitting where we are now sitting.

Don Foster: And we were still here.

Anne McIntosh: It is good to know that the hon. Member for Bath is still with us.
 The Minister's clarification is helpful, but if the provision has been in existence since 1996, he should be able to satisfy the Committee by telling us what the specific circumstances would be. He referred to ''limited circumstances'' in which the power of direction would be used. I take his point of correction that the power of direction is to the authority rather than the chief constable, but it will still affect the autonomy of the police authority. Clause 47 relates to the police authority's role to set the objectives, and I mentioned some problems about that earlier. 
 It would be helpful to know about the circumstances in which the British Transport police authority would be deemed to have got it so wrong in setting its policing objectives. I am mindful of the Government's experience since 1997. They have had nearly five years in power. They had the opportunity to scrutinise the 1996 Act. In the light of that experience, 15 hours—not nearly enough—has been devoted to this part of the Bill. If it is possible to make it better, that is what the Committee should aim to do. Could the Minister, with the benefit of nearly five years' experience, explain the circumstances in which the authority will be deemed to have got it so badly wrong, however limited they might be? That would greatly assist the Committee in understanding the parallels with 1996, if any.

John Spellar: It is a slightly odd question. The Government draft clauses such as this for the reasons that applied in relation to previous legislation—because it is difficult to envisage the possible breakdown in relationships that might lead in such a direction. Nevertheless, it is felt to be necessary and desirable for such powers to be available to the democratically elected and accountable representative, so that the public interest might be served. I am sure
 that the previous Administration acted on similar principles in 1996, and it is our thinking with regard to clause 48.

Anne McIntosh: It has been a useful discussion. I am sorry that the Minister has been slightly reluctant to respond, but his comments have been most helpful to our understanding. We shall continue to explore all possibilities in relation to the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Railways policing plan

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in
clause 49, page 20, line 9, at end insert 
 'including measures to reduce vandalism'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No.63, in 
clause 56, page 22, line 28, after 'crime', insert ', including vandalism,'.
 Amendment No.62, in 
clause 56, page 22, line 32, at end insert— 
 '( ) location of offences committed;'.

Don Foster: It is often said that time flies when one is having fun. It is clear that the hon. Member for Vale of York is having fun; a few minutes ago she told us that the Labour Government had been in power for nearly five years. I have to tell her that it is now nearly six years.
 However, far from fun are the problems caused by trespass and vandalism on our railways. Earlier in our deliberations, we discussed at some length the role of the rail accident investigation branch. Much of that discussion concentrated on the investigation of accidents, and it was assumed that we were talking primarily about train collisions, derailments and so on. The sad truth is that far more people die on railway property as a result of either tragic suicide or vandalism and trespass. The British Transport police would argue that about 300 deaths occur on the railway through those causes, of which about one third are as a result of trespass and vandalism. A hundred deaths on the railways from those causes is far more than those that occur due to collisions or derailments because of defective equipment. It is vital, therefore, to discuss trespass and vandalism on the railway. I am conscious that it is becoming an issue of concern for all of the bodies that are involved—British Transport police, Network Rail, the train operating companies and the various other bodies in the railway industry. The problem has gained a new name: instead of calling it trespass and vandalism, we are increasingly calling it route crime. 
 A great deal of work is now being done to publicise the difficulties and the potential dangers, and the deaths that will occur as a result. There is a growing number of education programmes. Network Rail is working to increase security fencing on either side of the railway track, for example. Much is being done. However, I contend that because it is such a serious 
 matter, it is important to refer to it in the Bill, and specifically for it to be part of the policing plan. 
 The figures are horrendous. Many acts of vandalism and trespass take place on our railways. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the 15,000 acts of vandalism and 15,000 acts of trespass that take place each year. Sadly, the figures have grown year on year, and over the past six years of the Labour Government—I do not blame them; it is a comparative figure—there has been a 10 per cent. increase. It is a matter of considerable concern. 
 The British Transport police recently issued a press release. It is probably the easiest way to draw attention to the seriousness of the problem. Under the heading of ''Route Crime'', it states: 
''Trespass may not sound like a serious offence but, in the unforgiving environment of the railway, it can be a major safety hazard. Trespassers put themselves, rail staff and passengers in danger. Trespass often leads to other offences—it is difficult to commit vandalism or to obstruct trains without trespassing. Holes made in fences by trespassers allow children to wander onto the railway, sometimes with fatal consequences. Similarly, adults taking short cuts across tracks or walking dogs on the embankment, give a bad example to impressionable youngsters. Putting obstructions in front of trains, hanging concrete blocks and the like from bridges are sadly daily occurrences. They can lead to serious injury and can even derail trains. Vandalising vital signalling and communications equipment and obstructing trains puts lives at risk. Stone throwing is potentially fatal. Even a small stone dropped from a bridge and meeting a train travelling at 100 mph can kill.''
 So it goes on. 
 In the latest document, which appeared as a supplement in The Railway Magazine under the heading ''Route Crime'', the person heading the campaign, Nigel Harris, wrote: 
''Route crime is among the most serious threats to the safety of railway passengers, staff and even those committing offences, but only recently has this scourge started to gain the high profile it deserves inside and outside the industry.''
 Later in the same article, he wrote: 
''While billions of pounds are being spent on new systems to make trains safer, the fact is that many more lives can be saved every year by implementing relatively low-cost solutions to keep trespassers off the railway such as better fencing and access across railway lines.''
 I am sure that he is right. 
 I said that there were about 15,000 trespass and 15,000 vandalism cases, but those are only the reported cases. Surveys that asked young people whether they had been involved in acts of trespass or vandalism on the railway produced staggering results. If those surveys are even remotely accurate, it means that about 2.5 million young people admit to having trespassed on the railway at least once, and about 700,000 young people admit to having been involved in acts of vandalism such as putting something on a railway line. 
 The British Transport police take the matter seriously, but I argue strongly that it ought to be specifically mentioned in the Bill as part of BTP's policing plan. Although much work is being done, I question whether we really take the matter seriously enough when it comes to the prosecution of such offences. As the Minister will be well aware, most 
 prosecutions are brought under various byelaws, often by Network Rail or other train operating companies. In reality, few of the recorded incidents—as I said, recorded incidents are far fewer than the actual number of incidents—lead to any prosecution. In 2001–02, there were 15,000 reported cases of vandalism and, of those, only 2,200 led to any charge or court summons, and not necessarily all of them led to convictions. Similarly, in relation to trespass, there were 15,395 reported offences in 2001–02, yet there were only 903 charges or summonses to court. It worries me greatly that many people are not summoned for such offences. 
 The Under-Secretary reminded us earlier that many of those cases are dealt with under byelaws as civil offences. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why existing legislation, which would make such acts of vandalism and trespass criminal offences, are not more frequently used. The Minister will be well aware of legislation going back as far as 1861 that could be used, and which was designed specifically for such activities in relation to the railways. For example, the Malicious Damage Act 1861 specifically deals with the following issues: 
''Placing wood, etc, on railway, taking up rails, etc, turning points, showing or hiding signals, etc, with intent to obstruct or overthrow any engine, etc''
 in the quaint language of the day. The same is true of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. That, too, was intended specifically to deal with such issues in relation to 
''Doing or omitting anything so as to endanger passengers by railway.''
 There are opportunities in existing legislation for such acts to be treated as criminal offences, prosecuted by the British Transport police, and if necessary, by the Crown Prosecution Service. I acknowledge that such issues are being given increasingly high priority, but they should be given even higher priority. One of the best ways of achieving that would be to prosecute more people who are found to have been involved in such acts, preferably, where appropriate, using criminal, rather than civil legislation.

Linda Perham: I understand and appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Bath about the seriousness of crimes of vandalism and trespass. Vandalism is mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I wonder why these specific offences should be included in the Bill. When the Minister was asked during our sitting on 11 February about the remit of the British Transport police, following a fascinating discussion instigated by the hon. Member for Westbury about why bigamy was excluded from its remit, he said:
''The policing of the railway requires a specialist police service to deal with the threat of terrorism, the problems of trespass and vandalism''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 February 2003; c. 159.] 
Those crimes are obviously within the remit of the police and I wonder why the hon. Gentleman feels that they should be mentioned specifically in the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 25 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.